KUTV report reveals how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

[Guest]

This is a time when both lawyers and defendants  need, step up and do the right thing; NO MATTER THE COST! The right thing to do, would have been to settle this when she first reported him. Now it a big mess, made so by either The Church, or the Church's attorneys. Either way, admit any guilt, punish anyone who enabled Joseph Bishop, and excommunicated all in a very public ways,  This is sad excuse of a man.. Pull his books for sale, make him return any money, and pay reparations to this young lady. 

Simply put, it does not matter what her step-father did to her, before the MTC, what matters is what happened to her in our care (The Church), and it does not matter how she lives now. It is time to get all sides in a room, and settle this within a few hours. If not it would ballon into a never ending sage and me too' s climbing on board.   

[Calm]

According to the transcript he alleges he lost all of his money when he invested with some other missionary.  He may have some in his condo.  He has a son who is a doctor and the lawyer looks like he is working for a small tech company.  He was going to remarry his ex-wife, if he didn't tell her that might have happened, but good chance she took off.  Anyway, there are options I believe if he loses his home.

The Church took a lot of wind out of the sails of the ProtectTheChildren movement.  She just got it all back for them by claiming an interview with a bishop at 15 led to her being raped at 22(?).  Even if settled, it is not going be allowed to settled down.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that will be unlikely.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Please change how you posted this.  Those are juliann’s words from her post, not a quote by me.

Thanks.

[Marginal Gains]

12 hours ago, provoman said:

Can you show a breach of confidentiality? 

In your opinion what confidentiality did Greg Bishop agree too?

The very fact that this woman’s sealed Church information is now in the public domain shows a confidence has been breached. That’s either at the feet of the Church, the Church’s lawyers or Greg Bishop. Take you pick.

The confidentiality clause at the bottom of the e mail he received where it states the information contained within is intended for the recipient only. The bit that says “This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they have been addressed....” etc. I’m betting every law firm partner and attorney in Utah has that at the bottom of the e mails they send out. I’m betting that disclaimer was on the bottom of the e mail Greg Bishop received. Or do Utah law firm e mails not carry such disclaimers?

Edited April 7, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Spend an hour to find out . . . she took a polygraph?

I was planning to watch the press conference anyway, because I am interested in getting facts and information about this issue.

I just finished watching the press conference. The only new things I learned were:

1. She claims Bishop's admission in the BYU police report relating to asking her to expose herself is actually not her but is instead referring to a different victim. 
2. She claims that, after her experience in the "rape room," Bishop continued to try and make contact with her and called her to his office but she refused to meet with him again, and she hasn't spoken with him from that time until the time of her clandestine interview in Arizona
3. Her attorney stated she was the one who leaked the recording to the media. His exact quote (starting around the 47:35 mark) was that "she leaked it to...she told a lot of people about that; she sent that to a lot of media. We don't know which media did that" [by which, I believe, he means he doesn't know who, specifically, sent it to MormonLeaks].
4. Her attorney stated (unsurprisingly) that they plan on deposing Wells

The overwhelming majority of the conference though was just narrative setting though. 

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

The first time she met him in the MTC was in his office with 4 other women, all apparently having been involved in sexual trauma.  There must have been annotations to their records or perhaps restrictions to the temple.  He was the one who granted her access to the temple even though she had a child out of wedlock.

He talks in the transcript about how often sisters exeriencing trauma in the past would start having triggers and would come to speak with him.

If she is honest, he may have sought them out rather than the reverse...

Yes, those are a few more new things I learned from the press conferenice.  Thanks.

I was not aware that he started out with first calling a small group of sisters in who had also been sexually abused and asked them inappropriate questions (Mckenna being one of them).

It would be interesting to know if it’s standard procedure for that type of confidential information to be given to the MTC president about any missionary coming there.  These sisters were abused but that doesn’t mean it should have been considered a past sin commited by them.   I would not like that breach of confidence (IMO) if it were me or my daughter. 

Why would their being sexually abused be a cause to impose “restrictions to the temple”?

And wouldn’t Mckenna (or any of the other girls) have had to repent of any sin she had committed (possibly involved with the conceiving her daughter) prior to going to the MTC?  Why would she have any temple restrictions at that point (in the MTC)?

They (press conference) did say something about wondering why Bishop had that info about these girls (maybe in the Q & A part?).  That was new too.

It would be good to know if she’d gone to the temple prior to entering the MTC.  Do we know this?

I also didn’t know his behavior towards her after the rape and when she was still in the MTC and had to see him.  That was new and interesting to hear her describe too.

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[provoman]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

Smac, you could have watched the press conference by now many times over 

...

“There was no church bashing and repeated support of church members who were  people trying to do good.”

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808591

 

 

There was Church bashing.

 

Reddit user HeberSeeGull - who identified herself/himself on a reddit forum - was the person who bashed the Church by demanding that mormon, who is a Judge, should be automatically barred because the Judge is Mormon.

Then there are Mckenna’s comments about interviews and the Sam Young movement - that was Church bashing.

The lawsuit itself is Church bashing, as it accuses the Church and various Priesthood Leaders - apart from Bishop - of deliberately acting to inflict emotional distress on the victim.

Then there were the attorney backhanded comments about the forward or other statements written by wells that were included in Bishop’s books.

Edited April 7, 2018 by provoman

[Duncan]

I thought she said previously she wasn't the one who leaked it to the media, aka Mormon Leaks and that she was fine with it so I don't know why now she is saying now that she leaked it

Edited April 7, 2018 by Duncan

[readstoomuch]

The narrative does not entirely make sense.  It doesn't seem to follow the path that so many missionaries have followed.  There is this need for a narrative to be logical, at least that is what I look for.  If it doesn't follow a logical sequence, what happened to make it different?  

[provoman]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The very fact that this woman’s sealed Church information is now in the public domain shows a confidence has been breached. That’s either at the feet of the Church, the Church’s lawyers or Greg Bishop. Take you pick.

The confidentiality clause at the bottom of the e mail he received where it states the information contained within is intended for the recipient only. The bit that says “This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they have been addressed....” etc. I’m betting every law firm partner and attorney in Utah has that at the bottom of the e mails they send out. I’m betting that disclaimer was on the bottom of the e mail Greg Bishop received. Or do Utah law firm e mails not carry such disclaimers?

So you have read the dossier?

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, provoman said:

There was Church bashing.

Not IMO....not at all.  Quite the opposite and I think it's very unfair of you to make that accusation.  Of course this was not all positive towards the church (they are suing them after all).

But Mckenna Denson praised the church and the members (several times).  And gave extremely high praises to the police department at BYU and was very positive regarding her experience with them.  She did no "church bashing" that I saw.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[readstoomuch]

I couldn't find the dossier.  I wanted to read it, just so I could understand.  Hopefully, I would understand who really collected it and what was the chain of it being leaked.  It is probably somewhere, but a half an hour of internet searches only found articles about the dossier.  I could read about it, but not actually read it.  I want something to make sense about all of this.  Sometimes that just can't happen.  

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

The narrative does not entirely make sense.  It doesn't seem to follow the path that so many missionaries have followed.  There is this need for a narrative to be logical, at least that is what I look for.  If it doesn't follow a logical sequence, what happened to make it different?  

It's not her version that doesn't make sense.  What doesn't make sense is why Bishop called those 5 sisters into his office like he did.  Some have assumed it's because they needed a worthiness interview (temple recommend) or had temple restrictions and have implied this to justify him calling those specific (past sexually abused) girls in and asked them inappropriate sexual questions.  But I think that makes no sense at all.  At least Mckenna Denson should have already been through the temple prior to going to the MTC..  I don't know where the other girls lived, but if it was where there wasn't a temple, they may have not been endowed prior to going to the MTC.  However, this was in the 1980's and missionaries went through the temple before leaving for their missions unless there were unusual circumstances.

Those were new details that I hadn't heard prior to the press conference (about how he started out with a larger group of sister missionaries who'd been abused and eventually it got smaller and he ended up just meeting alone with Denson).  

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I thought she said previously she wasn't the one who leaked it to the media, aka Mormon Leaks and that she was fine with it so I don't know why now she is saying now that she leaked it

That's not what she said (or her attorney said...can't remember which) in the news conference (that "she leaked it").  It gets confusing and that's why it's good to just watch the conference.  I should actually watch it again myself because it's hard to keep it all straight.  But they confirmed that she didn't leak it (and that it ended up being something they were ok with....although originally they weren't sure when it was first leaked).

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's not her version that doesn't make sense.  What doesn't make sense is why Bishop called those 5 sisters into his office like he did.  Some have assumed it's because they needed a worthiness interview (temple recommend) or had temple restrictions and have implied this to justify him calling those specific (past sexually abused) girls in and asked them inappropriate sexual questions.  But I think that makes no sense at all.  At least Mckenna Denson should have already been through the temple prior to going to the MTC..  I don't know where the other girls lived, but if it was where there wasn't a temple, they may have not been endowed prior to going to the MTC.  However, this was in the 1980's and missionaries went through the temple before leaving for their missions unless there were unusual circumstances.

Those were new details that I hadn't heard prior to the press conference (about how he started out with a larger group of sister missionaries who'd been abused and eventually it got smaller and he ended up just meeting alone with Denson).  

it would be interesting to see who those sisters are or what they remember, maybe they had other experiences with Bishop

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it would be interesting to see who those sisters are or what they remember, maybe they had other experiences with Bishop

I agree.  I don't know if any other sister missionaries who were there at that time have come forward.  

(It would also be important to know if they were endowed prior to entering the MTC as well.)

[provoman]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Not IMO....not at all.  Quite the opposite and I think it's very unfair of you to make that accusation.  Of course this was not all positive towards the church (they are suing them after all).

But Mckenna Denson praised the church and the members (several times).  And gave extremely high praises to the police department at BYU and was very positive regarding her experience with them.  She did no "church bashing" that I saw.

 

 

It is very fair and accurate for me to make the accusation. Would you like me to copy and paste the post HeberSeeGull made on reddit about the Church bashing question  asked?

The railings against interviews by McKenna were Church bashing.

It’s unfair of you to suggest that I am not being truthful about something, there was definately bashing. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by provoman

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is very fair and accurate for me to make the accusation. Would you like to copy and paste the post HeberSeeGull made on reddit about the Church bashing question  asked?

The railings against interviews by McKenna were Church bashing.

It’s unfair of you to suggest that I am not being truthful about something, there was definately bashing. 

There was no church bashing during the press conference, IMO....none at all.  Mckenna Denson could not have been more positive regarding how she feels about members of the church, the gospel, etc.  She is very well spoken and stayed positive regarding that. 

They want some changes, but there was no bashing.  They were very careful to remain positive from what I saw.

I can't speak to any comments being made on reditt about the conference.  Of course those probably do contain "church bashing" (I don't read over there because of that).

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

There was Church bashing.

(That’s a quote from juliann, not my words.)

But, I agree with her statement.  Mckenna was very complimentary in her comments about the church and the church members (more than just once even)  and BYU as others have posted.  They are not happy with Bishop’s behavior and the support (and protection) the leaders continued to give him after they learned about his pattern of abuse.  There was also no discipline and they’re not happy about that either.  

That’s not church bashing.  

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

it would be interesting to see who those sisters are or what they remember, maybe they had other experiences with Bishop

True.  Bishop calling all 5 in together (all had been sexually abused before their mission) is really strange I think.  Even if it was for a temple worthiness issue, they should have not been all called in and questioned as a group (TR interviews are one on one).  

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[provoman]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

(That’s a quote from juliann, not my words.)

But, I agree with her statement.  Mckenna was very complimentary in her comments about the church and the church members (several times)  and BYU as others have posted.  They are not happy with Bishop’s behavior and the support (and protection) the leaders continued to give him after they learned about his pattern of abuse.  There was also no discipline and they’re not happy about that either.  

That’s not church bashing.  

Yes, I know it was not your statement, and sorry for the confusing on it. Some people on the this board either have at time sexist posts or refuse to honor CFR request, so I do not read their comments.

And there was bashing. Plain and simple there was bashing. Both from the audience asking questions and from the victim and from the attorneys. The victim also had praise, but the praises is  the same type of response as "I am not racist, I have a friend who is a minority".  Eitherway, there was bashing. 

For an example of the bashing please see a few of the questions asked by a reddit user who posted the information below on a rabid anti-Mormon discussion board:
 

Quote

 

I was so touched by McKenna's summary at her press conference. She appears well represented by her attorneys.

As I public citizen I was welcomed to ask questions which I did on three separate occasions as my questions kept popping into my head.

My camera battery ran out so I did not record the whole experience, so my questions may show up on the some of the live feeds?

1. How can you get a fair trial is the judge is a LDS temple endowed person who has sworn at the penalty of death to sacrifice all for LDS? Response: It's in Federal Court and so may not have an LDS judge but all judges who sense a conflict of interest can recuse themselves. I retored that this is not good enough because any such Mormon would be unable to determine on their own if their bias would be evident in the trial. Response: Well, I appreciate your opinion but that is how federal judges operate. (I still was not happy with this response but understood why this non-LDS attorney responded this way.

2. On the issue of transparency and trust, how can we trust the Q15 to change their ways when they have been the ones to contribute to the problem and keep their finances secret?

3. Response: We [attorneys and the victim] wonder the same thing.

4. Has anyone from the SCMC - Strengthening Church Members Committe contacted you? Response: No.

 

1.  

 

So yeah, there was no bashing the Church, The 1st Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, because at no time did the attorneys, victim, or audience question the integrity of the  1st Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 or the The Church....silly me.

Edited April 7, 2018 by provoman

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, provoman said:

Yes, I know it was not your statement, and sorry for the confusing on it. Some people on the this board either have at time sexist posts or refuse to honor CFR request, so I do not read their comments.

And there was bashing. Plain and simple there was bashing. Both from the audience asking questions and from the victim and from the attorneys. The victim also had praise, but the praises is  the same type of response as "I am not racist, I have a friend who is a minority".  Eitherway, there was bashing. 

For an example of the bashing please see a few of the questions asked by a reddit user who posted the information below on a rabid anti-Mormon discussion board:
 

1.  

None of those examples were church bashing by either Denson or her attorneys.  Are you referring to some of the wording of those asking the questions?  

The truth is that many have wondered if they can get a fair trial in Utah (if this goes to trial).  That's a reasonable question.

She has good reason to have trust issues regarding the leaders of the church (and that's a part of why there is a lawsuit).  

They answered "no" to the question about the Strengthening Church Members Committee.

How are any of those "church bashing"?  I agree with juliann's statement:

Quote

 

“There was no church bashing and repeated support of church members who were  people trying to do good.”

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808591

 

Your examples fail to support your claims, IMO.   But continue to believe as you wish regarding that.

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

None of those examples were church bashing by either Denson or her attorneys.  Are you referring to some of the wording of those asking the questions?  

The truth is that many have wondered if they can get a fair trial in Utah (if this goes to trial).  That's a reasonable question.

She has good reason to have trust issues regarding the leaders of the church (and that's a part of why there is a lawsuit).  

They answered "no" to the question about the Strengthening Church Members Committee.

How are any of those "church bashing"?  I agree with juliann's statement:

Your examples fail to support your claims, IMO.   But continue to believe as you wish regarding that.

The questions and answers were CLEAR, OPEN, OBVIOUS, DELIBERATE, SPECIFIC attacks on the Church and the Leadership of the Church and attacks on the integrity of LDS people....but like I said "silly me" for realizing those attacks are bashing. You can deny all you want, that is your right. To maintain comment that there was no bashing, is willful blindness.  

Edited April 7, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

On 4/7/2018 at 8:04 AM, Amulek said:

I just finished watching the press conference. The only new things I learned were:

She claims Bishop's admission in the BYU police report relating to asking her to expose herself is actually not her but is instead referring to a different victim. 

That makes sense.  I had thought it odd that she had not addressed this incident with Bishop when she recorded her conversation with him.

Quote

Her attorney stated she was the one who leaked the recording to the media. His exact quote (starting around the 47:35 mark) was that "she leaked it to...she told a lot of people about that; she sent that to a lot of media. We don't know which media did that" [by which, I believe, he means he doesn't know who, specifically, sent it to MormonLeaks].

Wow.  This actually may be sort of significant.  Denson has been quite misleading about the "leak."  Denson told the Deseret News on March 19 "that the tape was released without her permission."  I also seem to recall a statement to the press by Denson where she suggested that one of her friends with whom she had shared the tape had released the recording, but that this would have been without her consent.

Denson also told this misleading statement (falsehood?) to MormonLeaks (or collaborated with them) to perpetuate it (as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune😞

Quote

The recording posted Monday was shocking: A former LDS Missionary Training Center president was saying he had a sexual addiction and admitting he improperly touched at least one sister missionary under his care. The Colorado woman who had secretly recorded him in December quickly said the tape had been released by the website MormonLeaks without her knowledge or permission.

But after a week of controversy over Joseph L. Bishop’s statements and her claim he had attempted to rape her in 1984, along with criticism of the LDS Church’s response and of MormonLeaks for possibly scuttling a proposed settlement with the church, the woman said Saturday she was glad the website had pushed the scandal into public view.

In a statement posted on MormonLeaks, she wrote that the release, while “prior to my consent,” has “actually helped me,” and she applauded the site’s staffers for supporting her cause.

...

The call to publish the recording was carefully made, MormonLeaks founder Ryan McKnight said Saturday.

“We didn’t see it as hurting her settlement; if she deserves a settlement, it’s because of what he did to her, not because there’s a tape,” he said.

There seems to be some possible collusion here between Denson and MormonLeaks.  Or perhaps Denson deceived MormonLeaks by publicly accusing them of "leaking" a recording without her consent.  Or perhaps she was just trying to mislead the public by omitting the very salient point that she was the original source of the "leak" she claims she did not consent to.

Fox 13 also reported this falsehood (based on Denson's statements):

Quote

The woman’s comments, posted on the MormonLeaks website on Saturday, said she did not consent to the recording of her confrontation with ex-MTC president Joseph Bishop being leaked — but she was also not upset with them, either.

“It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. I cannot fault them for that. Having this story leaked has actually helped me,” she wrote. “I was struggling with the settlement. Part of me wanted to take it and part of me didn’t. They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose.”

The woman said she does not feel the leak of the recording is re-victimizing her. 

Here's the statement itself released by MormonLeaks on behalf of Denson (which, again, perpetuates a falsehood) (emphases added):

Quote

Statement on Behalf of the Victim in Joseph L. Bishop Audio Recording

The following is statement written by the victim whose voice is heard in the audio recording of former Mission President, Joseph L. Bishop, admitting to inappropriate relations with women.

I’m the woman in the recording with Joseph L. Bishop. My identity will be revealed when I file the lawsuit.

First, although MormonLeaks did release my recording prior to my consent, Mr. McKnight and Mr. Dodge support my cause. It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. I cannot fault them for that. Having this story leaked has actually helped me. I was struggling with the settlement. Part of me wanted to take it and part of me didn’t. They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose. Some have stated that I am heroic and brave. I am neither of those things. I interviewed my rapist because I was pissed off. The church told me I wasn’t entitled to know what action, if any, had been taken in my reporting his raping me to several church leaders for 30 years. I was fed up. It was neither brave nor heroic.

Part of me wanted this to go away quietly and a bigger part of me wanted to scream from the top of the mountain what he did to me. Now I get to scream!

Even if the leak of the recording was prior to my consent, I do not agree that these men are re-victimizing me. I don’t think they would have released the recording without giving it serious thought and weighing the consequences heavily.

I look forward to sharing more of the story in the coming weeks.

This statement is more than a little dishonest.  

Her attorney framed the cessation of settlement discussions with the Church as being caused by the "leak" ("'Since the leak, there have been no further settlement discussions' with the LDS Church, the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, confirmed to The Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday. 'My client deserves justice.'").  But now, it seems, we know that it was Denson who undermined and scuttled the settlement discussions.  She then lied and blamed MormonLeaks (and/or an unidentified friend of her) for the "leak."

Yes, Denson does indeed deserve justice.  But publicly lying, as Denson has apparently done, to manipulate public sentiment only undermines these efforts.  Her credibility as a witness and truth-teller is an important commodity.  And here we have plain proof, not merely a hint or suggestion or implication, but proof, that she has been lying to and manipulating the media to leverage popular opinion in her favor.  

I think the truth needs to be told about what happened to Denson.  But she is weakening our ability to get there.  The legal system, in order to work, must be able to adjudicate legal claims dispassionately, must do so based on competent, probative, admissible evidence.  In this case, we have a claim of sexual assault from 30+ years ago.  We have no forensic evidence.  We have no documentary or surveillance evidence.  We have no independent percipient witnesses.  

Instead, we have very vague admissions of misconduct by an elderly man who was recorded under false pretenses, and who may have been coerced to some extent, and who does not admit to rape or attempted rape as alleged by Denson.  I am not sure how much, if any, of this recording will be admissible as evidence.  We also have some tenuous circumstantial evidence about the basement room (Denson knew it existed and that it had a cot/bed and a TV/VCR). 

We also have statements from Denson's attorney that they will try to depose Robert E. Wells (ask him questions while he is under oath), calling him a "key figure."  But Wells seems to be a "key figure" in that Bishop may have made a confession to him.  But if that happened, it almost certainly happened with Wells functioning as a "priest" and Bishop as a "penitent" in a "priest/penitant" capacity.  That means any such communications are privileged.  I am not an expert in that area of law, but I suspect they will have a difficult/impossible time getting around the that privilege.  I think Denson's attorney recognizes this.

So the lion's share of the evidence ends up being . . . Denson's say-so.  Her personal testimony.  Her statements about what happened.  But here we have her flagrantly lying, and repeatedly so.  She lured Bishop into meeting with her under false pretenses.  She secretly recorded the conversation.  She then spread this recording far and wide ("she leaked it to...she told a lot of people about that; she sent that to a lot of media...").  She then lied about the recording being "leaked."  She accused MormonLeaks of publishing it without her consent ("MormonLeaks did release my recording prior to my consent...").  She falsely characterized her own release of the recording as a "leak."  She mischaracterized her own reaction to and feelings about the "leak" ("Having this story leaked has actually helped me ... They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose...").  And she apparenty has a fairly substantial history of dishonesty, including criminal dishonesty.  See here:

Quote

As recently as February, the woman was arrested in New Mexico on suspicion of identity theft. According to a police report, she used an ex-boyfriend's name and Social Security number to obtain utility services and to lease an apartment. Detectives obtained a phone recording wherein the woman posed as the ex-boyfriend, using his name, according to the police report. That case is pending.

Another police report, from South Carolina, describes a 1999 case in which the woman claimed she was pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked. Detectives learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability. They concluded she was dishonest and her report "unfounded."

In separate interviews with The Republic, the woman's former husband and another family member also questioned her motives and credibility.

On at least two additional occasions, they said, the woman reported being raped — once while on her Mormon mission in Washington, D.C.

The ex-husband, who is not named in this report so as not to reveal the woman's identity, said, "This is an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt."

In a case like this, credibility is the coin of the realm.  And Denson appears to be working hard to squander whatever credibility she has.

She apparently was a victim of sexual abuse by Bishop, although the scope and severity of that abuse seems very much in doubt at present.  I want justice for her.  But "justice" is to be found in the legal system.  And the legal system requires dispassionate weighing of competent, probative, admissible evidence.  And virtually the only evidence available here is Denson's testimony.  And the competency, probative value, and admissibility of Denson's testimony is generally co-equal with her credibility.  And her credibility is apparently quite poor, and is taking an ongoing beating because of Denson's ongoing efforts to deceive or mislead.

Quote

Her attorney stated (unsurprisingly) that they plan on deposing Wells

I doubt this will happen.

I'm not surprised, either.  Mr. Vernon's case is based on allegations of misconduct that are presently pretty much unsupported by any evidence save his client's say-so.  And his client's say-so is, unfortunately, not worthy much from a legal perspective.  So yes, he'll want to depose Wells, since he really, really needs a better quantum of evidence than what he has at present.

This is such a weird case.  I am beginning to suspect that Mr. Vernon has something of a loose cannon for a client.  Let me lay out the basic beats:

1. Denson recorded her conversation with Bishop, and that became the primary basis for Vernon to approach the Church and attempt settlement negotiations. 
2. Denson then "leaked" the recording to "a lot of media."  I doubt Vernon had a hand in that, as any settlement discussion would likely have included confidentiality provisions. 
3. Denson therefore either entered into settlement talks in bad faith, with the intention of destroying them mid-way through by "going public" about the allegations (this seems unlikely to me), or else she is a "loose cannon" and "leaked" the recording without Mr. Vernon's knowledge or approval.  (He could not have stopped her, of course, but as her attorney he almost certainly would have cautioned her against taking such a radical step without his direct involvement.)
4. After Denson "leaked" the recording, she then lied about it and blamed others (MormonLeaks most significantly). 
5. Denson then lied about that lie ("Having this story leaked has actually helped me ... They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose..."). 
6. Denson's ongoing problems with honesty have put Mr. Vernon in a very difficult, if not impossible, situation.  He had to either A) help perpetuate his client's dishonest statements through a cover-up, which in turn would likely have been exposed anyway (and would also breach his ethical obligations as an attorney), or B) he could force his client to "come clean" in the least-damaging way possible.  That is, have a full-blown press conference, put his client front and center, and then say:

7. Quote

   I just want to point out ... we did not have any part of leaking this to MormonLeaks ... McKenna, she leaked it to, she told a lot of people about that.  She said that to a lot of media.  We don't know which media did that {passed the recording on to MormonLeaks}.  And at first that was a shock to us.  We didn't know it was going to come out.  But, in retrospect, I appreciate MormonLeaks because MormonLeaks is doing what they are supposed to be doing.  That was a document that needed to have been leaked so that this story could be told.  They forced our hand.  The settlement negotiations shut down, and that's fine...

8. There's a strong whiff of let's-make-the-best-of-a-bad-situation coming off of the above statement.  Mr. Vernon tacitly and in a roundabout way admits that his client has been lying about the "leak."  He is shocked - shocked!- to find that after his client had "leaked" (his word) the recording to "a lot of people" and "a lot of media," the recording . . . became public knowledge.  "We didn't know it was going to come out."  Yeah, sorry.  Not really buying that.  Not totally.  He may well not have known it was going to come out, but that is probably because he didn't know that his own client had leaked his key - and perhaps only - bargaining chip to "a lot of people" and "a lot of media."  That while he was in the middle of confidential settlement negotiations with the LDS Church's attorneys, his loose cannon of a client "forced {their} hand" and killed the negotiations.
9. Mr. Vernon glosses over his client's misrepresentations about the "leak" rather admirably.  But then, it wasn't really hard to do.  He was in a controlled environment: a press conference he has called, with a sexual assault survivor sitting next to him, so it's not like anyone was going to raise questions about his client's dishonesty about the "leak" (who did it, whether she had given consent, her feelings about it, etc.) in that moment.

In the end, I am somewhat disappointed in Ms. Denson.  I have much sympathy for her, and much anger at those who - by commission or omission - have caused her injury.  She is presenting real and serious claims that should have been brought to light long ago.  I readily acknowledge that.  But her credibility is, or should be, a key resource for the legal system to do its job, and she is undermining that system's ability when she does things like publicly lie, repeatedly, about a "leak" that was anything but.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2018 by smac97

[juliann]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

1.  

So yeah, there was no bashing the Church, The 1st Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, because at no time did the attorneys, victim, or audience question the integrity of the  1st Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 or the The Church....silly me.

So you had to pull in the audience to get to some criticism, eh? I repeat, she did not bash the church. That does not mean it was all praise. Do you not know what bash means?